freedom of speech

question: reading 3 and reading 4 cite differing views regarding freedom of expression. which view do you subscribe to and why?

I feel that there should be freedom of speech, but only to a certain extent.
From reading 3, its states that "there is no doubt freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy" i agree with this statement. This is because, decisions are usually made on a majority vote in democratic countries, however, if there is no freedom of speech, no one will voice out their opinion, and even the wrong opinion will become a right opinion. For example, the holocaust, prohibiting holocaust denial does not mean that the holocaust occured. However, it is from people's majority opinions that the holocaust ever existed.
Reading 3 also states that "the press have to understand, the do not alone create the context and lifespan of their messages." I also agree with this statement, because the press should know that for a same message, different people may receive it in a different way. For example, when the danish papers depicted prophet muhammed as a terrorist, the danish may just take it as a joke, becuase in their culture, it is okay to insult other religions. However, they do not realise that muslims can read it in a different perspective, where they see this as an insult to their religion.

From reading 4, it states that "a distinction should be made clear between what believers of one faith prefer, and what the state decides for a secular society".This may be a situation where too many people can be offended by too many things, and therefore ban everything. For example, the "da vinci code", the christians believe that it is against their faith, but that does not mean that the governement will have to ban it. The christians can protest by boycotting the film, but they cannot stop others from watching the film as others may not feel the same way as they do. Like i have mentioned above, different people can read the same thing in a different perspective.
Reading 4 also mentioned that "my own view was that i did not think any state should ban the cartoons(danish cartoons about prophet muhammed). But i did find hypocritical the newspapers' decisions to continue publishing those cartoons on the grounds of freedom of expression, in societies which had laws and norms against insult to Christians or Jews". Thus, when the press is publishing about an issue, they should consider whether it is a sensitive issue and maybe put themselves in the shoes of the muslim, where their own beliefs are being insulted. Therefore, maybe abstaining from such sensitive issues.

In conclusion, i agree with both reading 3 and reading 4, where the press can have freedom of speech to a certain extent. With freedom of speech wrong opinions can be corrected. Also, too many people are offended by too many things and one cannot stop people from saying something that offends you. However, the press have to understand that different people look at things in a different perspective, and thus existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Thus after reading both articles, it is best that the press have freedom of speech but used responsibly.